Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning

Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Horney ◽  
Garett Sansom
2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  

Abstract Evidence-based decision-making is central to public health. Implementing evidence-informed actions is most challenging during a public health emergency as in an epidemic, when time is limited, scientific uncertainties and political pressures tend to be high, and irrefutable evidence may be lacking. The process of including evidence in public health decision-making and for evidence-informed policy, in preparation, and during public health emergencies, is not systematic and is complicated by many barriers as the absences of shared tools and approaches for evidence-based preparedness and response planning. Many of today's public health crises are also cross-border, and countries need to collaborate in a systematic and standardized way in order to enhance interoperability and to implement coordinated evidence-based response plans. To strengthen the impact of scientific evidence on decision-making for public health emergency preparedness and response, it is necessary to better define mechanisms through which interdisciplinary evidence feeds into decision-making processes during public health emergencies and the context in which these mechanisms operate. As a multidisciplinary, standardized and evidence-based decision-making tool, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) represents and approach that can inform public health emergency preparedness and response planning processes; it can also provide meaningful insights on existing preparedness structures, working as bridge between scientists and decision-makers, easing knowledge transition and translation to ensure that evidence is effectively integrated into decision-making contexts. HTA can address the link between scientific evidence and decision-making in public health emergencies, and overcome the key challenges faced by public health experts when advising decision makers, including strengthening and accelerating knowledge transfer through rapid HTA, improving networking between actors and disciplines. It may allow a 360° perspective, providing a comprehensive view to decision-making in preparation and during public health emergencies. The objective of the workshop is to explore and present how HTA can be used as a shared and systematic evidence-based tool for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response, in order to enable stakeholders and decision makers taking actions based on the best available evidence through a process which is systematic and transparent. Key messages There are many barriers and no shared mechanisms to bring evidence in decision-making during public health emergencies. HTA can represent the tool to bring evidence-informed actions in public health emergency preparedness and response.


2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole V. Wineman ◽  
Barbara I. Braun ◽  
Joseph A. Barbera ◽  
Jerod M. Loeb

ABSTRACTBackground: To assess the state of health center integration into community preparedness, we undertook a national study of linkages between health centers and the emergency preparedness and response planning initiatives in their communities. The key objectives of this project were to gain a better understanding of existing linkages in a nationally representative sample of health centers, and identify health center demographic and experience factors that were associated with strong linkages.Methods: The objectives of the study were to gain a baseline understanding of existing health center linkages to community emergency preparedness and response systems and to identify factors that were associated with strong linkages. A 60-item questionnaire was mailed to the population of health centers supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Bureau of Primary Health Care in February 2005. Results were aggregated and a chi square analysis identified factors associated with stronger linkages.Results: Overall performance on study-defined indicators of strong linkages was low: 34% had completed a hazard vulnerability analysis in collaboration with the community emergency management agency, 30% had their role documented in the community plan, and 24% participated in community-wide exercises. Stronger linkages were associated with experience responding to a disaster and a perception of high risk for experiencing a disaster.Conclusions: The potential for health centers to participate in an integrated response is not fully realized, and their absence from community-based planning leaves an already vulnerable population at greater risk. Community planners should be encouraged to include health centers in planning and response and centers should receive more targeted resources for community integration. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1:96–105)


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.A. Shubayr ◽  
Y.I. Alashban

This study aimed to assess the knowledge of nuclear medicine technologists (NMTs) in radiation emergency preparedness and response operations and their willingness to participate in such operations. A survey was developed for this purpose and distributed to NMTs in Saudi Arabia. Sixty participants responded with a response rate of 63.31%. Based on the overall radiation protection knowledge related to emergency response, NMTs can perform radiation detection, population monitoring, patient decontamination, and assist with radiological dose assessments during radiation emergencies. There were no significant differences in the knowledge on the use of scintillation gamma camera (P = 0.314), well counter (P = 0.744), Geiger counter (P = 0.935), thyroid probes (P = 0.980), portable monitor (P = 0.830), or portable multichannel analyzer (P = 0.413) and years of experience. Approximately 44% of the respondents reported receiving emergency preparedness training in the last 5 years. Respondents who reported receiving training were significantly more familiar with the emergency preparedness resources (P = 0.031) and more willing to assist with radiation detection or monitoring in the event of nuclear reactor accident (P = 0.016), nuclear weapon detonation (P = 0.002), and dirty bomb detonation (P = 0.003). These findings indicate the importance of training and continuing education in radiological emergency preparedness and response, which increase the willingness to respond to radiological accidents and fill the gaps in NMTs’ knowledge and familiarity with response resources.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document